campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum talk:Critiques of Government Transparency
Essay vs. Thesis This article appears to be written as a critique of the article "Transparent Government", rather than a critique of its thesis. I don't know about the other contributers, but this is not how I envisioned the 1POV policy. I'' intended the whole "alternative article" thing to mean an article presenting an opposing or otherwise alternative thesis, independent of the other article. Comments about the specific arguments made in an article should go in that article's talk page. That is not to say that this article should not exist, or even that it's points are not valid. They should just be written as an independent article critiquing the ''thesis of government transparency, not the article, "Transparent Government". --whosawhatsis? 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :While I would like to see an essay that is againt the thesis of Transparent Government (though I would find a better rhetorical device to make it sound better...'For Nation Security'?), I think it's fine to have essays, or rather, forums, that are critiques of particular essays. It opens the door for more nuance, perhaps. Maybe someone agrees with government transparency, but finds the essay unsatisfying in a way that a simple altercation will not fix. Or maybe this essay is the beginning of a real essay on the idea of transparent government (or national security at all costs). Ferguson 05:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ::If someone agrees with the thesis of the original article, their points should be added to that article. If they disagree with the thesis, whether they agree with the principles or not, they can start an alternative essay. I see no reason to create an article that discusses another article. That's what talk pages are for. --whosawhatsis? 05:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC) :::Re: thesis v. essay Ferguson 18:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :::I'm not sure if I would want to add specific disagreements in the article itself, though I would welcome it in the discussion page. I actually rather like the idea of having a separate critique page for an essay, as that lead to less clutter. That's my opinion, anyway. :::Also, I've been toying around with this idea, and I want to hear what people think. What would you say to hyperlinking sections of essays to particular sections of other essays which answer those sections? That really wasn't clear. What I mean is, if an essay were to make a statement that is refuted elsewhere, can we link that statement to the refution? I see it as elegant and useful, but I could see it if you think it would be distracting and annoying, too. ::::Way ahead of you. --whosawhatsis? 22:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Looks great :::::So does that mean this is a rebuttal page? Should it be renamed or something? Or are we leaving this alone? -- Ferguson 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::That template would be used in the government transparency article to link to the rebuttals in this one. No changes should be necessary in this article, except that it should be written independently of the other. There is no template for "This is a rebuttal to..." because those arguments should restate as much of the information as is necessary for the rebuttals to make sense. --whosawhatsis? 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Sovereignty This section argues that transparency is inherent in government because people have the ability to vote to get rid of politicians who abuse their trust. The concept of government transparency does not deny this, and in fact is useless without it. Transparency is not the means by which politicians are removed, it is the means by which their actions are relayed back to their constituencies so that they know how their trust is being used. It's not the election/impeachment process, it's freedom of information and of the press to relay that information back to the public. --whosawhatsis? 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) :And in a country with a free press, it's not an issue. 70.233.140.149 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ::Well, but then we would get into the issue of how to define a free press and corporate ownership of the media. Chadlupkes 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ::That's only true if the definition of "Free Press" includes a press with total access to government information. If the press is free to print whatever the hell they want, but they don't have access to the truth, they're useless. THAT is what government transparency is all about. --whosawhatsis? 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC) False Dilemma Nazi Germany arose out of a democratic system. We're trying to avoid a reprise of that. While we have a democratic republic, we cannot assume that the persons we elect to offices will not attempt to take advantage of their power. There are certain institutions put in place to police the government as it polices us--primarily the independent press. However, when the government decides it can withhold information of what is doing and how it is doing those things, that should be cause for concern, as that inhibits our power to police them. Also, read The Monopoly of the Republocrats and see how our current government may be in an ideal position to usurp all established checks to its power and growth. It may not, but giving a five year-old a loaded gun may not hurt anyone, either. -- Ferguson 23:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)